"Total Cricket"

[Starfighter]

I think if you're talking about batting depth in your bowling while also having great bowling depth then the Australian XI in this match is hard to go past. And we didn't exactly do well on that tour.

 

[cnerd123]

The insight that England played very attacking cricket is correct but I think a big part of that is the way SL have bowled and the pitches/field placements. The optimal strategy in this set of circumstances has been to attack the ball and hit it into the gaps provided. They've just executed it really well. It's not a sign of a greater shift in the way England are going to bat in Tests

 

[TheJediBrah]

it's happened by accident as they just don't have any top order bats and they have a surplus of allrounders types

/thread

England aren't changing anything in Test Cricket. ODI cricket they may be starting to though.

 

[TheJediBrah]

If having batting depth in your bowlers is total cricket, can hardly go past the Warne-Lee-Gillespie combo. Even McGrath has a test 50.

There's been plenty of stronger tails than Warne-Lee-Gillespie. Like probably at least half of them.

and McGrath's 50 was against a minnow so doesn't really count

 

[Pratters]

no

 

[NZTailender]

There's been plenty of stronger tails than Warne-Lee-Gillespie. Like probably at least half of them.

and McGrath's 50 was against a minnow so doesn't really count

yeah but have those tails also been arguably the best bowling line up attack ever?

 

[Adders]

yeah but have those tails also been arguably the best bowling line up attack ever?

If the name "Lee" is in the attack then no way is it in a conversation for best bowling line up ever ffs.